About the notion of deserving [thought experiment]

Most moral questions that take place in our universe have easy, intuitive answers because human nature is fundamentally rational and responds to negative/positive emotions.

In this case, the situation is very hard to create an intuition for, because so much of it is at odds with how we view human nature. Moral intuitions operate in a realistic universe - and in our universe, if someone experiences sufficient levels of pain - or derives zero joy or happiness from their activities, then they would stop doing those things. But instead this person, as described by FC, carries on performing those activities. To me, this describes someone who has no free will.

So we should really alter our understanding of the situation to be more realistic, but still comparable to the hypothetical. What kind of entity would operate under the standards described? And how should we treat that entity?

In this case I think we should view it as a machine, kind of like AM (Allied Mastercomputer) from "I have no mouth, and I must scream" by Harlan Ellison. And the machine is programmed to inflict pain on others. The machine however, is also capable of experiencing joy. Is it worth it, in that scenario, to take its happiness away?

In that context, I think the answer is no. It is not responsible for causing suffering, it has no choice in the matter. Clearly no matter how much pain is inflicted on the machine, even infinite levels of pain would not be enough to change its behaviour. So it is by definition acting illogically, as the actions it is undertaking are pointless acts of cruelty and therefore can't be "worth" the pain in any substantial way. It must have been programmed.

To take away its happiness therefore is truly pointless and only creates more suffering in the world. The machine is basically a victim of bad programming. It should not be made to suffer for the evil instructions of its programmer. And if you really want to claim that the human in this severely twisted hypothetical is consciously choosing to cause harm regardless how much harm is done to him in response, I would say he suffers some form of brain damage and, as a disabled person, isn't really culpable for their actions.

#19 with paragraph breaks
> @FC-in-the-UK A well-fed cat will kill more birds and mice at al than a hungry cat who must prey for food. I've seen my own scratching her back on the concrete sidewalk in the warm sun with her injured bird victim wobbling nearby. She relaxed and closed her eyes and flipped her tail in true regalia. Also another bird continually cried to lure the cat away I assume. Clearly this was the victim birds mate and they were of a pair bond type. Some birds mate for life some seasonally. I found it disturbing and clearly kitties are not disturbed at all. They kill for pleasure.
> and there are humans who feel the same way. Most of whom simply keep quiet and do what they must to avoid prison or trouble of hurting others. If you examine the healthcare industry you find a haven of sadistic psychopathothology. Fucking horror show. I hate it. I hate human suffering. Then the idea that there are humans who enjoy causing other humans pain is just out of range of what I can make sense of.
> Then this is compounded by the idea that suffering is not only important for growth but that it is necessary, that our very sole hope is somehow inextricably intertwined with unimaginable suffering..:is a bother. Then all mideival torture and execution and everything that happened in ww2 and with all unethical unwilling human 'medical' experimentation Ive read of it's ubiquitous..:is unspeakable. not literally unspeakable but if you look into it it doesnt take long to realize you wont be teaching any of this history to your young children while at the same time you know you MUST be teaching this history to every single person, contextualizing it, and trying to make sense of it for all who were conditioned into a state of complacent indifference complicit) . Its not they were all monsters who conducted these things but it takes brainwashing. this is precisely what can be averted through proper education.

> even now I wonder of to whom Im writing this right now. I like your thought exercise or whatever and I appreciate the intellect apparently where yourre coming from on this. And even as I say all this so far Ill add a bit further to be clear I had checked out all the way a while ago like dazed and confused for so long again you know led zepplin.
> and i wonder how many compartmentalized semi lucid intelects are out here in the world and what the hell they are like or doing or experiencing and so on...now all that said, how can you purport to know how anyone arrived to whatever condition models whatever behaviors you see? How do you guess what everything means to them? Or what they purpose in their actions? I don't know how to pinpoint a line between what is real (in the actual existing verifiable by everyone honest and participating-sense of the word) and imagined. No problem. Seriously.

(Add "I think" before some of these)

While technically no one actually knows that much (you could be a brain in a vat), since nothing is really known outside of the universe, my idea of "reality" = "universe" (spacetime+matter+energy). So for example, my brain's model of the universe includes, say, myself. Therefore I "exist". And also your message "exists". And something ("you") must've made that message.

My brain has by now assumed you are human. (I didn't even consider it's implausible that an animal did, or calculate the probabilities than an AI posted it.)

Now notice how I'm assuming a lot of things.
I think the only way someone could claim to "know" say, what people think, is because they've assumed something, i.e.
given some assumptions, I "know" something.

And one key assumption is that "universe" = "reality", and another is that "true" = "a very simple universal definition implicitly understood by context-independent 5 year olds who pass the "Someone sneaked the cookie in the other box but Sally doesn't know that" test", and another is that "I" am in "reality" (and so my experiences (taken literally, e.g. "comment #19 exists") in reality), and another is that other people have consciousnesses (don't actually "know" that, see brain in a vat, but it's useful, it's an assumption.)

So an example of knowledge is "how do other people think"?
Now really, I don't know... with 100% certainty. But even with a sample size of one (myself), experiences and knowledge can help "improve" my certainty.

Now very few people think in terms of actual number probabilities. Sometimes vague probabilities, like "likely", "possible", "almost always", and "previous maybe 20% but now without even doing the math it's 95%, except replace these numbers with feelings" (last one is a rabbit hole)

But in general, their personality and knowledge (formed by experiences) cause them to genuinely think they know <something>.

(Now when I say assumption, I mean assumptions that feel kinda like mathematical certainties, like 1+1=2. "I think, therefore I am". Not assumptions like "Choose the cookies and cream ice cream, that has to be better than vanilla".)

> As I say 'no problem' somebody says 'good one'. While this is mockery yet it doesnt really hit, you know? Is it real? Absolutely. Did anyone else hear? Not on this planet, but maybe, i just dont know. This is a world apart from the notion of having checked out I mentioned before. Another whole separate world of bs altogether. I hope from the length and specificity of this comment you know that it is directly propotional to the value or my appraisal of the value of your thread. I know for a fact beyond any possibility of a doubt that people do not understand things very good especially others and the thought processes of others and their actions.

> So this is a very deep question indeed. What does it mean 'deserve'. No one deserves anything do we? We cant tell the end from the beginning. We cant create life although we cant certainly affect it. But we see an all too common trend of the free will of a rapist trumps the free will of the unwilling victim. How is this possible?! I mean in the philisophical sense of it we can say that God is so commited to our freedom of choice as to allow it. Clearly this is a paradox as it flies in the face of the free will of the victim and we are left with a question just as much if not more so than when we began. Again, what is deserved? We need to know the consequences to begin to judge such things. And we just do not know the final end of anything at all . so what is deserved? I know that I dont know. But I personally hate human suffering although I do believe it is a major factor in developing good character. now I'm fractured in a schism . split mind schizo annd obsolete despite having spent some considerable time thinking on precisely these matters because they matter and I care and it doesnt matter. and it makes no difference. so what is deserved. tell me, dude. Oh yeah, so cat would chill like that until the bird would try to run away then quickly overtake it again, submit it and then go back to chillin leaving the bird alive and injured and also while distressing the birds pair bond partner who perched and flitted nearby just at a safe distance calling and calling... was disappointed with the cat but this is who they are. does it mean that this is also at least in part who God is as well? hope not, eh?

Here's ...a possible argument to why evil exists: www.lesswrong.com/posts/Lt8Rn4rkYwqiTXGPy/answer-to-job
I don't believe in any religion so this is fiction, but maybe it would improve the world to show you this.

Of course, the above link is a spoiler for a chapter in a book so maybe start at unsongbook.com/ instead.
Might be hard to understand without lots of processing as lesswrong tends to promote.
And it's unlikely that this fits with any religion. Your choice but I think it's a good read (entertainment sense).

If I were a deity in this scenario, I'd spend my time raising into happiness those who are not happy, rather than degrading someone's happiness.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #17:
> I wouldn't remove his happiness but I would definitely change his notion of views towards certain fields cause I am God-like entity!
Read FC's posts carefully, You cannot make Mr. X a good person, nor change his behaviour, view, or thought. You only have 1 power, you can take away his happiness.

This is a moral dilemma imo.

maybe Christmas Carrol has the answer? We should take away his happiness like gt him in an accident bankrupt him and then he'll understand ... ( idea from typical indian serial bro) xD

> Now suppose you are some sort of God-like entity, and you can't change who Mr X is, but you can remove his happiness. Would you do it?

What would be the point? It is blatantly obvious that happiness is meaningless as a measurement of a life lived. Therefore any action towards MR X would reflect poorly upon our character as a being.

Does a physical body seek to destroy the viruses that bleed it dry and threaten its life?

@StevenEmily said in #22:
> "true" = "a very simple universal definition implicitly understood by context-independent 5 year olds
Sometimes the most obvious-looking notions are the most tricky ones. There is actually NO WAY TO DEFINE TRUTH. The proof is very simple and very ancient: if you could define truth, you could express "this sentence is not true". The self-reference is NOT an issue (this is known since the work of Gödel).
@Akbar2thegreat @StevenEmily @Hedgehog1963 in this thought experiment you aren't an actual deity. You only are God-like in the sense that you have the power to remove Mr X's ability to feel happiness with a click of your fingers, and nothing more, nothing less.
@kyanite111 what about sadists? What about people who enjoy exerting powers on others? What about people like Alexander the Great, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoléon, Hitler, Putin?
@Firegoat7 said in #26:
> What would be the point? It is blatantly obvious that happiness is meaningless as a measurement of a life lived. Therefore any action towards MR X would reflect poorly upon our character as a being.
It is blatantly obvious that any measurement of a life lived is meaningless.

@FC-in-the-UK said
>
>
> It is blatantly obvious that any measurement of a life lived is meaningless.

I disagree. There are qualitative differences between lives lived. Happiness, however, is something everybody can experience. Furthermore, more happiness is not necessarily beneficial for an improvement in the quality of your life.

@Firegoat7 said in #29:
> Furthermore, more happiness is not necessarily beneficial for an improvement in the quality of your life.
And how does the quality of your life matter if you're not happy about it? I'd rather live with less and be happy than spend all my time to make money to buy things that I won't have any time left to enjoy.